8GB RAM with 64-bit OS - is it worth it?

[Imrahil91]

Hi, I'm planning to build a new computer for the first time. It will be used a lot to gaming, but also other heavy tasks. Since RAM is so cheap, I've been on the thought of using 8GB RAM which would be pretty cool
But then I'll need a 64-bit OS which I've heard many negative things about... soaftware and drivers not working etc.

So does 8GB make a big difference from 4GB, and is it true that 64-bit is uncompitable with so many programs?

 

[Zelig]

Assuming you're referring to Vista 64-bit, as opposed to a 64-bit version of Linux, with a new computer, unless you use old applications that haven't been updated in years, you'll have minimal problems using the 64-bit version instead of the 32-bit version.

The difference from 4gb to 8gb depends on what kind of stuff you're running, the average home user or gamer isn't going to see much of a difference, you need to be working with really intensive software, or have a penchant for leaving a load of programs open.

However, even for 4gb, you'll need a 64-bit OS, 32-bit versions of Windows get dicey past 2-3GB, and a 64-bit OS will help stability with programs that use large amounts of memory. (but less than 4GB)

 

[Imrahil91]

ok, thanks for helping

I think I'll got for 2x2048 ddr2 and hope that my 32-bit OS can use 3GB+
Maybe I'll buy more 2GB sticks and upgrade to 64bit later

 

[ArmpitofDoom]

I'm running 2gb on Vista 64. I haven't had too many problems with programs. However, it can be testy with some games. That's the only real complaint I have so far. I have had installed for about 9 months now. Other than that, it's been great.

 

[Speedo]

So does 8GB make a big difference from 4GB

In the vast majority of cases (looking at home applications), no. Most programs you have probably weren't even compiled with the /LARGEADDRESSAWARE flag, so they can only use a maximum of 2GB of address space. This is beginning to change, with games at least, but it'll probably be another year or 2 yet until there's a real use for 8GB of RAM.

 

[StarWorms]

Might be best to get 4GB and then wait for the price to drop off more and get another 4GB if you need it once the price has dropped. DDR3 is expensive now, so presumably you mean DDR2. Wait for DDR3 to take hold and it'll go even cheaper! I just bought 2GB PC3200 for something like £25

 

[Shadylookin]

for your purposes probably not, and especially not if you aren't going to get a 64bit OS

 

[lutzj]

RAM is one of those things that barely helps when you have enough, and helps tremendously when you need more. 8GB seems unnecessary, except for VERY heavy duty work.

 

[EconomistBR]

RAM is one of those things that barely helps when you have enough, and helps tremendously when you need more. 8GB seems unnecessary, except for VERY heavy duty work.

Yeah I agree, I have 2 GB and they only fill up if I use Google Earth for hours.

 

[Quintillus]

Unless you have program that you know can and will take advantage of more than 4 GB (likely to be heavy-duty scientific programs at this point, possibly some other enterprise/research program), there's really no reason to get 8 GB now. Mainstream programs are mostly not built to handle more than 2 GB of RAM, some 3 GB, and even those that can almost never actually will in typical usage scenarios. Sure you could run five games at once on a 64-bit OS...but do you really need to?

I'd stick with no more than 4 GB right now. Anything more than that is overkill - if you need it, you probably already know you need it.

 

[dragokatzov]

a lot of people say even anything more than 2 gigs of ram is pointless
you are right however, ram is ultra cheap. i would only suggest doing if you are going to plan on using this system for a very long time (like 5+ years)
you can get all 8 gigs now, and use the 32-bit OS for now, then upgrade to the 64-bit of vista or Windows 7 whenever they have the bugs worked out. by then, its entierly possible that the price of ddr2 ram will be higher (kinds like the price of DDR1 ram and SDRAM now), this way you will be able to have your cake and eat it too

 

[Chieftess]

8GBs would really be overkill! I have 3 Gigs in mine (I may go for a 4th tops eventually - not that I have any need for it yet. Maybe if SPORE eats up too much memory 6 months from now.), and it actually is a difference over 1 gig, plus Windows loads up a bit quicker, too.

Here's the way I look at it -

Anything less than 128 Megs - A museum piece.
128 Megs - Win95 or Win3.1, plus an old word processor. (I know of someone who does this. They bought my uncle's old PC for that purpose).
256 Megs - Win98 or less, plus a decent word processor.
512 Megs - Windows 98 (a bit of an overkill for Win98, though), a few older games, plus MS Office.
1 Gig - Windows XP, plus your standard programs.
2 Gigs - A good developer box, and most gaming, and for minimum server requirements.
3-4 Gigs - Good for the last 5% of games that require a lot of memory, or if you're using tons of graphical drawing programs. Civ4 might qualify as one of those 5% of games that use up tons of memory (excessive graphical rendering! And yes, it did speed up Civ4.)
5-8 Gigs - Only if you're running a server with a healthy dose of data. (We have a couple servers like this at work.)
9+ Gigs - Only for supercomputers.

I have an Intel P4 3.2Ghz machine that's 4 or 5 years old now, and it still runs great. It ran the Crysis demo beautifully! (with occasional lagging in high-rendering scenes, but nothing major.)

Now, there are old games that used memory really well, like SimLife and SimEarth. If only old DOS operating systems could utilize 8 Gigs... I'd be finishing the desert-to-jungle scenario on a huge world in less than an hour!

 

[Zelig]

http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/02/15/vista_workshop/index.html

There's a decent article about running Vista with 8gb of ram.

 

[Speedo]

http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/02/15/vista_workshop/index.html

There's a good guide about running Vista with 8gb of ram.

That page about the "swap file" makes the baby Jesus cry, TBH.

 

[Zelig]

That page about the "swap file" makes the baby Jesus cry, TBH.

Yeah, that was sort of pointless. At best, disabling the swap file does nothing, at worst, it causes lots of problems.

 

[IamJohn]

Yeah, that was sort of pointless. At best, disabling the swap file does nothing, at worst, it causes lots of problems.

It takes up space, in the articles case, 8 GB of space.

 

[Zelig]

It takes up space, in the articles case, 8 GB of space.

About $1.60 worth of hard drive space, which probably doesn't overly concern anyone with money to spend on 8GB of ram.

 

[Pyrion]

That Tom's Hardware guide is loaded with inaccuracies.

For instance, the "memory remapping" feature referenced on page 1 is actually Physical Address Extension, and it's disabled because it essentially shows 32-bit device drivers 64-bit addresses. Hilarity ensues. It's disabled in client versions of Windows specifically for this reason, so unless you're running Windows 2003 Server you can't take advantage of it anyway.

Page 2: For AMD rigs, while chipset doesn't typically play a part, the board's BIOS will. Some BIOSes are rigged to be limited to a certain amount of addressable memory, and memory remapping in the BIOS won't get around this. If a board is advertised as supporting 4GB max, then 4GB is the max the board will run, period.

"Memory remapping" is properly handled on this page, and again has nothing to do with PAE.

Page 7: For processes that will actually benefit from having more than 2GB of virtual addresses, just editbin the executable. Specifically, the "/LARGEADDRESSAWARE" flag will fool the OS into allowing whatever specified process to use its 4GB of virtual addresses, even if it never has to. TES4: Oblivion specifically (as well as old builds of Supreme Commander) benefits from this hack.

Page 8: A more detailed, concise explanation of this page is actually quite simple: Microsoft has intentionally disabled allowing the installation of unsigned kernel-mode drivers, which apps such as SpeedFan and RivaTuner rely on to access the SMBus. It's a "security precaution," and a . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . excuse as they didn't apply the same treatment to 32-bit Vista.

It also would've been nice had that TH article specified how much memory was really in use, not just with process working sets on system startup but actually what Task Manager reports as in use, "cached" specifically. That's where SuperFetch steps in. Looking at my rig right now, I have 2.36GB of process working sets in RAM (windows driver foundation, the windows shell, desktop window manager, and firefox are the major offenders here) plus an additional 6.4GB of process standby pages and disk cache (yes, it adds up to more than 8190MB, it makes sense actually, as the process' standby pages count as both "cached" and "in RAM.") Only 26MB of memory is actually "free." In gaming circumstances I typically see 45-55% memory "usage" and the highest I've gone is 90% thanks to 7zip.

 

[RSHague]

I run Mac OS on a MacBook Pro with 4GB of ram. I use windows at work a lot and I think windows 7 really benefits from running a 64bit OS, the more ram the better. Its a sluggish operating system anyway. If you run more then 4GB on a mac in 64bit on Snow Leopard and use any graphic program or logic pro you will really see a big improvement. On games, they are not designed to work in 64bit, so anything over 4GB would not even be used. Not yet anyway, give it a year tops.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I have 4GB and I havent run into any problems yet. But I dont play any FPS or stuff like that. Id think a lot of the RAM would be wasted because IIRC, 32-bit programs cant see more than 4gb.